# State Ex Rel. State Board of Public Affairs v. Principal Funding Corp.

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · February 12, 1974 · 519 P.2d 503

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550062

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Oklahoma Ex Rel. STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Et Al., Petitioners, v. PRINCIPAL FUNDING CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** February 12, 1974
- **Citations:** 519 P.2d 503; 1974 OK 16; 1974 Okla. LEXIS 259
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hodges
- **Judges:** Irwin, Davison, Williams, Berry, Lavender, Barnes, Hodges, Simms, Doolin
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by State Board of Public Affairs v. Principal Funding Corp., 1975 Okla. LEXIS 542 (1975).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550062

## Opinion text

HODGES, Justice
(dissenting).
This case poignantly demonstrates the reasons the doctrine of governmental immunity should be overthrown and forgotten.
Nineteen states have now discarded the shield of governmental immunity. The fallacy of the doctrine is self-evident. Governments are made for the people and by the people. Its purpose' is to preserve and protect, and when it inflicts damage or injury upon the people they seek to govern, then they should be held responsible.
A truly democratic government should be bound to observe the same rules of conduct that it requires of its citizens. Just as individuals and corporations are legally accountable for their conduct so should the government be legally responsible for their conduct.
In my opinion when the government enters into a contract with an individual or a corporate entity, it is liable for breach of its agreement in like manner as any other person and the doctrine of governmental immunity does not apply.
The majority recognizes the injustice of imposing governmental immunity in this instance. But instead of abrogating the doctrine, the court continues to recognize fiction to circumvent its harsh application. While this approach is encouraging in view of the court’s past decisions it still clings to an archaic precedent.
Governmental immunity encourages governmental irresponsibility. It is a reminder of a feudal past when it was thought that a King had divine rights and could do *508 no wrong. But we have no King and who is there to claim divinity. Governmental immunity should be relegated to a page of history and with its abrogation an expectancy of a more sound and responsible government.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550062. Public record. Not legal advice.